Re: Request to relicense all CC0-1.0 code to MIT (or similar permissive license)

2023-01-22 Thread Heiko Becker
On Sunday, 22 January 2023 18:01:35 CET, Albert Astals Cid wrote: El diumenge, 22 de gener de 2023, a les 14:12:32 (CET), Neal Gompa va escriure: During a review for flatpak-kcm for inclusion in Fedora, I discovered that KDE currently licenses its CI scripts under the CC0 (SPDX: CC0-1.0) license

Re: Request to relicense all CC0-1.0 code to MIT (or similar permissive license)

2023-01-22 Thread Ben Cooksley
On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 2:13 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > Hey folks, > Hi Neal, > > During a review for flatpak-kcm for inclusion in Fedora, I discovered > that KDE currently licenses its CI scripts under the CC0 (SPDX: > CC0-1.0) license. This is no longer generally permitted in Fedora for > softwa

Re: Request to relicense all CC0-1.0 code to MIT (or similar permissive license)

2023-01-22 Thread Albert Astals Cid
El diumenge, 22 de gener de 2023, a les 14:12:32 (CET), Neal Gompa va escriure: > Hey folks, > > During a review for flatpak-kcm for inclusion in Fedora, I discovered > that KDE currently licenses its CI scripts under the CC0 (SPDX: > CC0-1.0) license. You mean .gitlab-ci.yml files ? Just scrub

Request to relicense all CC0-1.0 code to MIT (or similar permissive license)

2023-01-22 Thread Neal Gompa
Hey folks, During a review for flatpak-kcm for inclusion in Fedora, I discovered that KDE currently licenses its CI scripts under the CC0 (SPDX: CC0-1.0) license. This is no longer generally permitted in Fedora for software/code due to the explicit exclusion of patent license grants[1]. While I r